from the rock-out-with-your-sockpuppets-out dept

It's something we probably all assume happens to some degree some of the time. A new video game comes out, it's put up on various consumer sites that allow for user reviews, and we assume at least some of the truly gushingly positive reviews are from people connected with the game trying to gin up positive feelings for their game. The problem, of course, is that if this is occurring, those perpetrating the mischief are smart enough to create new profiles and handles for their efforts, so as to hide their identities. Thus, we assume, but cannot verify.

Harmonix, a video game maker which recently released Rock Band 4, has happily come by to assist us with this problem by having employees too lazy to create these sock-puppet accounts while posting insanely positive Amazon.com reviews for the game. As discovered by an enterprising Reddit user:

Harmonix employees seem to have taken to Amazon to post their own favorable reviews of the game. At first I thought it was a rogue employee or two but then I dug around for about a half hour and found 7 of them and so it appears to be more of an initiative. I'm sure there's more than that. I don't know the legality of this but it's highly unethical and extremely disappointing. No excuses. Companies are not supposed to reviewing their own products, PERIOD.

This is good sleuthing if I ever saw it. So, a handful of Harmonix employees have been caught red-handed astroturfing reviews for their own game. While doing so, they apparently went so far as to invent brand new personas for themselves, cosplaying as "new fans" to the genre and as members who are "looking forward to seeing what's next" from Harmonix, when they likely damn well know because they are Harmonix. Questions of legality aside, everyone is likely to agree how distasteful this is and what a vacuum of trust this will leave with gamers. Given the current climate of things, trust deficits are no way to position a game company.

Harmonix has clarified its internal policy about posting reviews of our own products on retail sites, and we’ve asked that existing reviews be edited to identify Harmonix employees or be removed entirely. While we believe the reviews posted by a few employees were sincere and without ill intentions, as a studio we don’t believe these are appropriate actions. We appreciate the feedback from the community, and take our relationship with our fans seriously.

There's a roughly zero chance of anyone taking that non-apology from Harmonix seriously. When employees are going to drop Amazon reviews making up personas as people who have never played a game in the genre, everyone has to know that there are ill-intentions there. It's lying, at the very least. But, worse, it's lying directly to potential customers in a manner designed to claw money out of their pockets. Expect this to get to the point in which Harmonix has to offer a second apology-apology before this dies down.

from the pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain dept

Comcast has consistently crowed about the volume of individuals and organizations that support the company's $45 billion merger with Time Warner Cable. Of course the company has just as consistently failed to mention how much of this "support" is from people paid to regurgitate pretty much any Comcast dreck-filled missive that comes stumbling down the road. Want funding for a new events center or a "closing the digital divide" photo op? Just leave independent thought at the door and send lawmakers a pre-written form letter with your name or organization's logo on it.

It doesn't take much sleuthing to uncover the money trail, because Comcast (and the politicians and groups beholden to it) usually (with some think tank exceptions) don't bother hiding it. They just outright deny that the money impacts policy positions whatsoever. For example, take reports this week that clearly highlight how Comcast can effectively buy a media sound wall of merger support, then pretend there's nothing untoward about an army of "consultants," minority groups, and fauxcademics all paid to effectively be glorified parrots:

"Increased Concentration Does Not Equal Anticompetitive Effect,” Mr. Manne wrote last August, summarizing his submission. He separately wrote pieces in Wired magazine, extolling the virtues of the deal, and through a separate advocacy organization he helps run, called TechFreedom, wrote a blog post that appeared the same day that the deal was announced early last year. Each time, he praised the transaction. But nowhere in these statements does Mr. Manne directly disclose that Comcast is among a small group of donors that finances his nonprofit group, a fact that Mr. Manne confirmed in response to a question late last week. "We are no value to our donors or ourselves unless we maintain our independence and academic rigor,” he said, before adding that “maybe there is some subconscious thing there."

Yes, surely Comcast's cash comes associated not with an expectation that you'll give automated and artificial justification to what's frequently very anti-consumer and anti-competitive policies, but that you'll exercise your "independence and academic rigor" and tell Comcast to piss off when you're approached to help "correct perceptions" about the latest Comcast PR campaign. You see there's nothing untoward going on here -- because we say there's nothing untoward going on here. We're all just healthy American patriots busy expressing our First Amendment rights, after all.

That logic was mirrored by Comcast's top lobbyist David Cohen -- who calls himself the company's "Chief Diversity Officer" to help skirt lobbying rules (I bring that up every time I write about Cohen because to me it just never gets old). Cohen says he's "offended" by the very idea that Comcast has to pay for its policy support:

"He did not dispute that many of the voices supporting the deal received donations from Comcast. But he said he was offended by the suggestion that their endorsements had been made in return for the financial help. "We have never provided financial support to an organization in exchange for support in a transaction,” he said. “Our support is based on the quality of the work they do in the community."

Now I'm sure that somewhere there exists a person that actually believes that, but I'd recommend not putting them in charge of your finances (or even lawn care). In Mr. Cohen's head, this is just another conspiracy contributing to the unfair overall "atmospherics" of anti-Comcast sentiment:

"The atmospherics around our customer service clearly stir some antipathy among some consumers," Mr. Cohen said. "And it does provide a basis for opponents of the transaction to gin up three-sentence, nonsubstantive communications to the F.C.C. saying that they don’t like Comcast or they don’t like Time Warner Cable."

That's a company with arguably the worst customer satisfaction ratings in any industry -- one that manufactures support for bad policies out of thin air -- trying to claim its horrible reputation is somehow manufactured. It's still not clear if regulators plan to deny the merger (or approve it with something vaguely-resembling meaningful conditions), but whatever happens it will spell the end of some fantastic entertainment that easily tops anything in Comcast's channel lineup.

It's a parlor trick that has seen endless implementation in the net neutrality debate. The latest example is the Minority Media and Telecom Council (pdf), which alongside a laundry list of diversity and minority groups (pdf) has been lobbying the FCC with net neutrality talking points that (surely coincidentally) mirror the broadband industry's. Namely, that weaker Section 706 rules are the best path forward (ignoring they do nothing and likely won't survive another legal challenge) and that tougher rules under Title II will kill network investment (which, as we've noted repeatedly, is also bunk).

At the front of this disingenuous diversity army appears to be Jesse Jackson, who, the Washington Post states, spent some time recently lobbying the FCC for weaker net neutrality protections. Why? Apparently Jackson believes that carrying the water for lumbering duopolies somehow will magically create jobs:

"Jackson "was unequivocal in voicing his opposition to Title II because of its effects on investment in broadband and because of the ultimate impact on minority communities and job creation," said Berin Szoka, another participant in the meeting with Wheeler who has also argued for Section 706."

Szoka is the same individual who has repeatedly tried to argue that killing off net neutrality will be a great thing for startups, so if anything, this latest FCC meeting must have at least had great entertainment value. As for the claim that Title II will kill investment (and therefore jobs), this has been debunked time and time and time again. When parts of Verizon's FiOS network were classified under Title II (mostly to net tax breaks for Verizon), you'll be pleased to learn that the sky didn't fall. Meanwhile, after a decade of deregulation companies like AT&T and Verizon have made it clear they're never going to upgrade many poor areas. In fact, they intend to back away from many of the communities they do serve.

Shockingly, neither Jackson nor any of the lobbying groups listed in "united" support seem aware of these realities in the slightest:

"Civil rights and diversity organizations are largely united in their support for Section 706, Jackson said in an interview Monday. He added that no matter which legal approach the FCC chooses, the agency's net neutrality rules should not end up marginalizing minorities and the poor. "We got a lot of poor folks who don't have broadband," said Jackson. "If you create something where, for the poor, the lane is slower and the cost is more, you can't survive."

Of course if you've been playing along at home you know that the entire concept of net neutrality revolves around protecting everyone (including the poor) from the nation's broadband duopoly, and the price hikes and assorted gatekeeper shenanigans they've been experimenting with for the better part of a decade. Yet somehow in Jackson's head, protecting the incumbent ISP's right to engage in anti-competitive pricing models will be a good thing for less affluent areas:

"Jackson raised substantive concerns Thursday about the ability of low-income Americans and minority communities to afford bandwidth-hogging Internet services, according to someone who attended the FCC meeting and had lunch with Jackson beforehand but who spoke on condition of anonymity because the meeting was private. Internet plans that exempt some applications from consumers' monthly data caps are one way to make data more affordable, and the tactic has become a popular business strategy in developing countries. But the practice also cuts against the principle of "strong" net neutrality because exempting some services from the cap necessarily means giving them special treatment over others. "[Jackson] immediately glommed on to this," said the person. "There are some strands of net neutrality … that are in direct conflict with low-income Americans."

Plans that "exempt some applications from consumers monthly data caps" sounds a lot like AT&T's misguided "Sponsored Data" efforts, which involve companies paying AT&T a fee for their content to bypass the company's usage caps. It's an idea that's solely about creating a new revenue stream for AT&T, but has the potential to hurt small companies and non profits that may not be able to pay AT&T's troll toll (how exactly would that help the poor?). And while there are some international examples of cap-exempt services being experimented with in developing nations where infrastructure barely exists (see 0.facebook.com and Google Free Zone), we're talking about the United States.

And here in the United States, our friendly neighborhood duopoly giants are looking for any opportunity to jack up what are already some of the highest prices in the developing world. If Jackson and friends really want to help their constituents, these diversity and minority groups could focus on things like fighting state laws that ban communities from improving their own broadband. I'll go out on a limb and guess that these groups' obfuscated financial donors would prefer that doesn't happen. Instead, by supporting the status quo and ensuring we take the weakest path possible on net neutrality, Jackson and friends are fighting against the best interests of the very same people they claim to be supporting.

from the because-it's-not dept

For the past few months, I'd been pitched a few times from people (often somehow, if in murky ways, connected to the broadband industry) arguing that all those stories about how the US is far behind in broadband is untrue if you just looked at certain states. The basic argument is that since the US is so large, it's not fair to compare it to, say, South Korea. Instead, they claim, if you just look at a few states in the US, those states compare quite well to this country or that country. Of course, to make a total fruit basket out of mixed metaphors, this is pretty blatant cherry picking apples to compare to oranges. We haven't written any of those stories, but apparently someone went and created a misleading infographic to try to make the point on a site called "the Connectivist."

The only way to do a true apples to apples comparison would be to look at the data for areas with similar conditions, including population size and area, which the Connectivist doesn’t do.

The site simply glosses over the fact that while broadband in the U.S. is improving, it’s still not a world leader in deploying high-speed Internet access to its citizens.

Even though nearly three-quarters of the U.S. has access to what the FCC currently defines as “broadband,” meaning at least 4Mbps downstream, that’s still not a high enough percentage to get it into the top 10 globally. In fact, that percentage barely puts the U.S. in the 40 of all nations.

Likewise, only 39% of Americans have access to 10 Mbps service, which is what many people now consider the minimum acceptable standard for broadband. That ranks higher, putting the U.S. within the top 15 worldwide, but still pales in comparison to world leaders like Sweden (56%), the Netherlands (52%), and Romania (50%).

Morran notes, sarcastically, that the Connectivist seems to ignore all of this... and then suggests a reason why:

Maybe it has something to do with an organization you won’t see mentioned on the Connectivist until you get to its “About” page, where it just happens to mention that “The Connectivist is an online magazine created in partnership with the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.”

Ah yes, the NCTA, better known as the major trade/lobbying group for the cable industry. The very same NCTA that recently tried to set up a painfully awkward attempt at sounding cool and young to attract younger people to its anti-net neutrality stance -- and when confronted with the fact it was behind that campaign, said, "What led you to the conclusion this is an NCTA effort?" At least this time it's officially buried in the fine print, but really, NCTA, if your argument is so compelling, why is it that you always have to set up fake groups to push it?

from the oh-that's-painful dept

In the past, we've covered attempts by big broadband to astroturf their way into the debate on net neutrality, and it just comes off as so obviously fake that it appears rather pitiful. The latest attempt may be even worse. While consumer advocacy groups have been able to do a great job getting people to speak up and raise their concerns about keeping the internet open, often appealing to younger folks who have always grown up with the internet, it appears that the big broadband lobbyists are now trying to fake their way into getting the same folks on their side -- and it comes off about as well as when your dad tries to act like a teenager, using new slang and trying to dress accordingly, but just making a total fool of himself. ProPublica has the details of a new effort by NCTA, the big broadband lobbying trade group run by former FCC chair Michael Powell (who is a big part of the reason we're in this mess today), called "Onward Internet." (ProPublica calls it a telco lobbying group, but NCTA is much more about cable interests).

Onward Internet has been setting up public "suggestion boxes" for the internet, complete with people idiotically dressed in "futuristic" costumes (because, you know how much millenials love Jetsons-like futuristic costumes):

But, of course, nowhere do they actually admit who's behind the campaign. Instead, they just use a bunch of internet "lingo" that they think makes themselves sound young and cool.

The boxes, sometimes accompanied by young people in futuristic costumes, have been popping up on both coasts for weeks, soliciting messages of support - but their sponsor has been a mystery. The web site for the campaign, Onward Internet, does not say. Their domain registration is private. And the site includes no contact information, only an animated video heavy on millennial lingo: "The internet was made to move data...we got blogs, likes, selfies and memes, OMG, BRB and TTYL."

No one from Onward Internet or the "production agency" (which already suggests astroturfing) behind it would admit to who was involved, but ProPublica tracked it down anyway, by asking the company that rented the space for one of those nutty installations, who came right out and admitted that it was NCTA. Amusingly, when confronted about it, NCTA tried to sidestep the question:

NCTA officials did not respond to questions about Onward Internet and would not confirm they're behind it. "What led you to the conclusion that this is an NCTA effort...?" asked Brian Dietz, a vice president for the organization, before he stopped responding to emails.

And, again, the deeper you dive into the Onward Internet effort, the more awkward and gag-inducing it becomes:

"Sorry we can't come to the phone right now," the call-in greeting says. "We just got wind of the juiciest celebrity rumor and we're working to confirm it. So please leave your suggestion for the future of the internet at the beep and visit Onward Internet dot com next month to see what we've done with it."

No joke. That's really the message you get when you call. Again, it sounds like big powerful cable execs trying to think what a teenager might actually say.

The effort's Twitter feed is chock full of these awkward attempts at sounding young and cool. It apparently sprang up on September 3rd, a couple of weeks before the FCC's comment period closed... and almost no one noticed, despite it pretending to "represent the internet." After a silly "test" post, it claimed to be "the Internet's official Twitter account" (and the only responses were people calling it out for being astroturfing). And then, here's its attempt at being a regular Twitter account.

I love that the awkward request for a retweet got... a single retweet. And it, too, got a response from someone asking "Who do you actually work for? Who signs your checks?" The one retweet came from a guy named Christopher Perry who (yes, you guessed it) runs an ad agency that notes he was the "art director" for Onward Internet. Here's a tip: when the only person retweeting your lame, wannabe, pleading attempts to get retweeted by young people is... the guy who created the campaign in the first place, you've failed. Big time.

After a couple of days, the Twitter feed shifts to pushing that insanely lame video, calling it "the #MOST #AMAZING #VIDEO about the Internet #EVER!" because, don't you know, the kids these days, they loves them some hashtags. They keep posting the video with new attempts to sound cool each time. "Check out this sweet video." "People, this is important!" The whole thing is ridiculous and delusional. As mentioned by ProPublica, the video itself is... terrible. It just keeps repeating slang and trying to sound ironic.

It repeatedly references lolcats (because that's what kids like, right?) and even has a discussion on how to pronounce "Gif." It's just trying way too hard. And the results seem to match. It doesn't appear like it got very much engagement at all, and from the looks of it, the NCTA spent a fair amount on it, despite Dietz's half-hearted attempt at denying its participation.

Eventually, once the ProPublica story was published, he finally provided a statement, claiming that they kept NCTA's name off of it because they wanted "unbiased feedback." Uh huh.

"We know that network neutrality is important to Internet users and we share the vision that the Internet remains an open and unfettered experience for all to enjoy," he said in his statement. "We've kept NCTA's brand off Onward, Internet because we want to collect unbiased feedback directly from individuals about what they want for the future of the Internet and how it can become even better than it is today. The cable industry is proud of our role as a leading Internet provider in the U.S. but we feel it's important to hear directly from consumers about how they envision the future so we can work hard on delivering it."

By lying to them and trying to pretend to be cool and young and to actually get the internet, when it's so painfully obvious that they don't. Besides, no one believes that. We've all seen how these astroturfing efforts work, and the focus is on getting these people to sign up to later pretend that they support your vision of cable dominance over the internet.

from the just-like-hollywood-takes-responsibility-for-its-movies? dept

You would think that a Hollywood astroturfing group, funded by all of the major Hollywood studios, would know better than to issue a blatant attack on another company for "failing to condemn" how some people viewed their products. After all, Hollywood is the industry that glorifies murder, con men and (yes) piracy. And Hollywood gets quite up in arms any time anyone suggests that its movies might influence folks in that way. That's the correct response because it is silly and ridiculous to attack an industry that makes one thing for then not condemning how that thing may be viewed or used improperly. But, apparently, some folks in Hollywood have no problem casting similar aspersions on industries they hate.

Earlier this year, we wrote about the "launch" of a new Hollywood-funded organization called "CreativeFuture." As we noted, this "launch" was a bit misleading, because CreativeFuture was just the rebranding of Creative America, an organization that Hollywood slapped together as an astroturfing group in support of SOPA and PIPA. It pretends to represent the interests of creators, but actually is almost entirely funded by the major Hollywood studios. After Creative America was a complete disaster, widely derided (even inside Hollywood) as a joke, Hollywood did a rebrand to CreativeFuture, and brought in new leadership in the form of Ruth Vitale, whom the NY Times described as "sassy." Except, as we noted, the playbook remained the same: basically misrepresent issues related to copyright, pretend to represent "artists" when actually representing the big studios who regularly screw over artists, and always, always, always blame the innovators and technology companies who have provided new tools and services that have helped reinvent the industry for decades.

Vitale is bringing her "sassy" take to this playbook with a bizarre attack on BitTorrent, entitled: We're All Waiting, BitTorrent. The basic argument is that since BitTorrent is often used for exchanging unauthorized copies of content BitTorrent Inc. has a responsibility to (1) "condemn" how its own technology is used and (2) figure out a way to stop it from being used that way.

If BitTorrent wished to prevent their client applications from being used to facilitate massive piracy, it could do something about it. The company says it’s all about technology, so how about using technology to reduce piracy?

Funny how some technology companies like BitTorrent are always extolling the unlimited power of technology – except when it can be used to help creators by preventing the unauthorized distribution of their creative content.

I believe that BitTorrent’s failure to publicly condemn the misuse of its protocol – and to actually do something about it – is going to hurt the company’s efforts to build legitimate business models... just like it hurts everyone else’s.

Despite the fact that, for many years, Hollywood has been blamed for all sorts of stuff concerning its movies -- and Hollywood has, rightly, pointed out that it's ridiculous to blame its movies for idiots imitating what's in the movies, or for believing they're anything more than fictional stories. And yet, now, when it comes to technology, Hollywood wants to take the same bogus moral panics used against it and turn it on technology? Just how cynical can Hollywood get?

Oh, actually much more cynical. Vitale also pulls out a sarcastic "manifesto" that BitTorrent creator Bram Cohen wrote many years before working on BitTorrent, in which he jokingly talked about building tools to "commit digital piracy" as if she's found the smoking gun.

The whole point of this "sassy" rant appears to be to drive creators away from embracing new technologies. She directly says that creators should "pause" before working with BitTorrent Inc., because even though it's created a massive tool for free distribution, combined with a very committed and loyal audience, which many creators have found help drive sales, she doesn't like that they haven't "done enough" to "stop piracy."

This is the same misguided playbook that Jack Valenti played for years, attacking the very technology his industry needed to embrace, delaying the inevitable and harming the very industry he "represented." Because, really, what does Vitale think will happen if either of her demands are met? If BitTorrent could magically make its protocol less useful, people will immediately switch to something else. If BitTorrent were to vocally "condemn" uses of its technology for infringement, does she honestly think that people who use BitTorrent to infringe on copyrights will magically change their ways? Who is she fooling, other than herself?

Instead of recognizing that there are many big entertainment fans that the industry could embrace and drive towards additional offerings, Vitale wants to make this a silly moral stand that will do no good -- not unlike the silly "morality" attacks on Hollywood for "promoting" sex and violence. Why Vitale would take such a page from the very people who tend to attack her industry is beyond me. It's hardly a strategy for embracing the future, and seems like one that only cements legacy Hollywood's image of being clueless and out of touch with today's entertainment fans, as well as new and innovative technologies.

from the no-open-internet-and-no-open-discussion dept

Last month, we wrote about the vastly different views on net neutrality from a variety of minority and latino organizations. The key to the story, not surprisingly, was that the minority groups that are heavily funded by the giant broadband troika of Verizon, AT&T and Comcast apparently think that true net neutrality would be a disaster for the minority community -- while the groups not funded by those corporate giants believe that more open and free internet devoid of fast and slow lanes is a good thing for the minority community.

Reporter Lee Fang had written a similar article for Republic Report, touching on some of the same points about the disagreements between these groups. That story got syndicated to a bunch of other sites, including Salon, and some others wrote about it. One site was NewsOne, which describes itself as being a news site "for black America." They had a blog post that discussed the Salon story and quoted heavily from it. That story no longer exists, taken down thanks to complaints from the same group it criticized. Here's a screenshot of what it looked like (you can click for a larger version):

So, where did the article go? Well, it just so happens that NewsOne is owned by Radio One, a company that is closely tied to Comcast. So, there's a bit of a conflict there already. Fang called up NewsOne and was told that the order to take it down "came from corporate headquarters."

NewsOne editor Abena Agyeman-Fisher told Republic Report, “the company didn’t feel it was appropriate to have up and we were suppose to take it down.”

For the life of me, I can't see anything in the original article that was "inappropriate," other than that corporate bosses might not have liked pissing off corporate partners by exposing some of their astroturfing. But that's not all. Fang also reached out to the lobbying group the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council (MMTC). MMTC is the organization that featured prominently in both my story and Fang's original story as being the central player in pushing the big broadband players agenda in DC and dragging along these other minority groups. Just last year, the Center for Public Integrity had called out MMTC as a big broadband astroturfing front group, noting that it had taken a strong stand against telco consolidation... until it was suddenly flooded with money from the telcos, and totally flipped its position:

From 2009 through 2011 MMTC received at least $725,000 in contributions and sponsorships from network neutrality foes including Verizon, Time Warner, and the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, according to MMTC tax filings and sponsorship lists.

MMTC’s relationship with Verizon demonstrates the group’s various methods of obtaining industry revenue. In 2009, at the height of the net neutrality debate, Verizon made a direct $40,000 contribution to MMTC. From 2010 to 2013, MMTC documents list Verizon as funding at least $160,000 in MMTC conference sponsorships.

It's also worth noting that one of Comcast's main political operatives, Joe Waz, happens to be on MMTC's board of advisors. We're sure that's just a coincidence though.

Either way, it appears that MMTC hasn't been particularly happy with people highlighting its curious change of position so closely tied to all that money from the telcos. As Fang reports:

On Monday, according to an attendee at an MMTC conference, MMTC vice president Nicol Turner-Lee referred to my reporting as a “digital lynch mob.” Turner-Lee... reportedly claimed that minority organizations that support Title II reclassification — the only path for effective Net Neutrality after a court ruling in January — are not “true civil rights leaders.”

So, Fang called up MMTC, and the group flat out admitted to contacting NewsOne to get them to pull the article. Because throwing around your weight to stifle criticism is cool:

Contacted by Republic Report, MMTC president David Honig confirmed that he reached out to NewsOne, and also stood by Turner-Lee’s comments from earlier this week. Asked about the digital lynch mob comment, Honig e-mailed us to say, “I stand with Dr. Turner Lee’s assessment of the various hit pieces written by you and others. She spoke in the vernacular of the movement to which she has devoted her life, and is referencing the divide and conquer tactics used for decades to undermine the civil rights movement.” Regarding the claim that no “true civil rights leaders” support reclassification, Honig replied, “she was correct. Not one of the leaders of the major national civil rights membership organizations has endorsed Title II reclassification.”

Honig is lying. Tons of major national civil rights organizations have, in fact, endorsed Title II reclassification. But, I guess when you can use totally arbitrary standards like "true" civil rights leaders and "major" civil rights organizations, you can make any claim you want and pretend you're on solid ground.

Either way, this incident not only highlights MMTC's willingness to not just bully the press and attack it with lies, but to go so far as to push media companies to remove content that criticizes them. The fact that NewsOne complied says nothing good about NewsOne as well. It also highlights why having truly independent media reporting on these issues is so important.

from the look-at-that dept

We've written a few times about the highly cynical astroturfing practice in Washington DC, in which certain lobbyist groups basically have "deals" with certain public interest groups. The basic deal is that the lobbyists guarantee big cash donations from their big company clients, and then the lobbyists get to write letters "on behalf of" those organizations for whatever policy they want enacted (or blocked). We quoted a story from Declan McCullagh in 2008 which included this classic line from a lobbyist who worked in one of these shops:

"You go down the Latino people, the deaf people, the farmers, and choose them.... You say, 'I can't use this one--I already used them last time...' We had their letterhead. We'd just write the letter. We'd fax it to them and tell them, 'You're in favor of this.'"

That first option, "the Latino people" turned out to be rather prescient. During the last net neutrality fight, in 2009, it was revealed that a bunch of Latino groups magically supported the telco position -- leaving out the bit about how they were funded by the telcos. Here's Matthew Lasar, back in 2009, revealing some details:

Take the go-slow on net neutrality commentary filed in late September by the Hispanic Technology and Telecommunications Partnership (HTTP) and 19 other civil rights groups. Their statement warns that net neutrality policies could inhibit investment and "leave disenfranchised communities further behind." The coalition describes themselves as having a common purpose, serving communities "that are among the most severely impacted by a lack of access to technology." And indeed the list includes signers from venerable organizations like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC).

But the groups signing the letter have something else in common: financial support from AT&T (and sometimes Verizon and Comcast). These advocates don't hide this. For example, the website of one of the signers, the Japanese American Citizens League, says "Website made possible by the generous sponsorship of AT&T." 100 Black Men lists AT&T as a "partner" and "sponsor" of the group. AT&T Foundation's 2007 tax returns show that 100 Black Men received $100,000 that year and $75,000 in 2006.

Similarly, the NAACP, which also signed the statement, lists AT&T and Verizon on its Centennial Event sponsors page. LULAC's website indicates that it received a $1.5 million Technology Access Grant from AT&T. Comcast Foundation's records indicate that it gave the LULAC Institute $60,000 in 2007. And in 2006 the AT&T Foundation gave LULAC numerous grants to support computer education centers across the United States.

And some of these groups have even more direct ties to the telcos. The Asian American Justice Center's Advisory Council includes Anne H. Chow, listed as "AT&T Chair" on the group's website. In 2006, AT&T identified her as a senior vice president for the company. Her AAJC bio says that Chow "played a key role in the AT&T/SBC merger with overall responsibility for the Sales and Marketing integration planning effort."

One DC insider informs us that rumblings on K Street suggest AT&T had called every civil rights group in the United States for support within fifteen minutes of the deal being announced. Fearful of losing AT&T donations -- most of these groups quickly got to parroting prepared AT&T statements, unconcerned about the actual impact of a T-Mobile deal. Getting funding for a new events center apparently dulls any ethical pangs felt using your organization as a hired stage prop.

Then, last year, the Center for Public Integrity decided to explore the nature of these various "civil rights groups" and their ties to the big broadband players, and found the situation to be quite suspect, especially with regards to the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council (MMTC), which helps coordinate many of these filings for the FCC:

From 2009 through 2011 MMTC received at least $725,000 in contributions and sponsorships from network neutrality foes including Verizon, Time Warner, and the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, according to MMTC tax filings and sponsorship lists.

MMTC’s relationship with Verizon demonstrates the group’s various methods of obtaining industry revenue. In 2009, at the height of the net neutrality debate, Verizon made a direct $40,000 contribution to MMTC. From 2010 to 2013, MMTC documents list Verizon as funding at least $160,000 in MMTC conference sponsorships.

Additionally, MMTC worked with Verizon on a $189 million sale of wireless spectrum licenses to minority-owned Grain Management this year — a deal announced in conjunction with a larger $1.9 billion license sale to AT&T. A spokesman for Verizon says money paid to MMTC wasn’t intended to influence its policies but to support its mission of promoting inclusion in the industry.

So it should come as little to no surprise that a bunch of these same groups, once again, filed a pro-telco comment with the FCC, arguing that reclassifying broadband under Title II would somehow be harmful to minorities. Note that the filing was coordinated by HTTP and MMTC -- both groups discussed above as taking money from the big broadband guys. The argument they're presenting makes absolutely no sense, but no one cares how sensible the argument is.

HTTP partnered with the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council (MMTC) and 35 other national minority organizations to file comments in the FCC’s proceeding to protect and promote the open Internet. The group urged the Commission to focus its broadband policies on promoting adoption, engagement, and informed broadband use by minorities, and to exercise its Section 706 authority to protect all consumers’ rights to an open Internet. In the filing, the organizations opposed Title II reclassification of the Internet under the 1934 Telecommunications Act, arguing that it would stifle broadband adoption among vulnerable populations, and would limit investment and innovation that have benefitted its constituents. Six HTTP member organizations also joined independently in the filing: Dialogue on Diversity; LISTA; MANA: A National Latina Organization; the National Puerto Rican Coalition; SER Jobs for Progress; and The Latino Coalition.

The difference this time, however, is that other groups, representing Latinos, Hispanics and other minority groups who are not funded by the big broadband guys, are now paying attention. And they filed their own FCC comments supporting Title II reclassification:

On Friday, the Voices for Internet Freedom coalition filed comments with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on behalf of more than 50 civil rights, human rights, community-based and media organizations in support of strong Net Neutrality rules that protect the digital rights of communities of color.

In the filing, the groups called on the FCC to treat Internet Service Providers (ISPs) as common carriers, which would allow the Commission to reestablish its legal authority to adopt Net Neutrality rules that prevent telecommunications companies from blocking, discriminating against and interfering with Web traffic. The coalition also called on the agency to ensure Net Neutrality protections are applied equally to both wireline and wireless Internet access.

The group opposes the framework for FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s proposed rules, which would allow ISPs to discriminate by creating fast and slow lanes online....

Voices for Internet Freedom is a coalition of nearly 30 organizations advocating for communities of color in the fight to protect Internet freedom from corporate and government discrimination. The coalition is led by the National Hispanic Media Coalition, the Center for Media Justice, Free Press and ColorOfChange.

And now the fight seems to be getting personal. Alex Nogales, the head of the National Hispanic Media Coalition, called out the Congressional Hispanic Leadership (which has come out in support of the broadband company's plan to kill net neutrality) by pointing out that they held a briefing that was sponsored by the telcos and totally one-sided. The event was so over-the-top biased that even some in the mainstream media highlighted how ridiculous it was.

Martin Chavez, from the telco-supported Hispanic Technology & Telecommunications Partnership, posted a blog post that purports to be a "can't we all just get along" type post, but which really personally slams Alex Nogales for what Chavez claims was an "angry outburst and lapse of judgment." Nogales isn't taking that sitting down and responded by pointing out that Chavez seems to conveniently leave out who pays his salary:

What is most interesting about Marty’s statement is what it doesn’t say. Notably, he did not address his employment with Ibarra Strategy Group, a lobbying firm whose clients include Verizon – the main opponent to strong and enforceable Open Internet rules. One would think that a person with such an egregious conflict of interest would, at least, disclose it in his public statements. Marty, unfortunately, does not.

Regrettably, what Marty did say in his statement is just as deceptive as what he conveniently left out. Of the many fabrications, Marty said that ‘most Latino organizations’ oppose the FCC using the sound legal authority found in Title II of the Communications Act to restrict blocking or discrimination online. This is patently false. A number of highly respected Latino organizations have sided with the community and come out in favor of strong Open Internet rules based on Title II authority, including: the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU), LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the National Association of Latino Independent Producers (NALIP), the National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ), the Mexican American Opportunity Foundation (MAOF), Presente.org, the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, the National Institute for Latino Policy, News Taco, Latino Rebels, and more.

It certainly is disappointing to see groups like this fight, but it's worth noting that there certainly does seem to be a clear pattern, as noted years ago, that the groups with funding from the broadband guys magically support the broadband players' position, while the ones who are not funded that way actually seem to recognize the importance of not giving in to the broadband guys' plans to kill net neutrality.

from the because-of-course-they-didn't dept

All the way back in 2008, we wrote about an increasingly common practice among slimy DC lobbyists to "sign up" clueless organizations to be used as astroturfing figureheads. For example, it seemed odd that corn farmers were suddenly interested in internet ad rates. The original article, by Declan McCullagh, included the money quote from an anonymous person involved in those kinds of astroturfing schemes:

"You go down the Latino people, the deaf people, the farmers, and choose them.... You say, 'I can't use this one--I already used them last time...' We had their letterhead. We'd just write the letter. We'd fax it to them and tell them, 'You're in favor of this.'"

This seems to be standard practice for the big broadband companies. We highlighted how AT&T got "The Latino Coalition" to speak up in favor of their attempted (and eventually failed) merger with T-Mobile. Meanwhile, Comcast recently got the US Hispanic Chamber of Commerce to come out in favor of Comcast buying Time Warner Cable. And, of course, the dirty secret in all of this is that the way this works is the big companies toss a bunch of money at these organizations to get them to "support" whatever positions the companies want them to support. For example, the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce received $320,000 from Comcast.

We recently wrote about the latest round of astroturfing groups that the broadband players were supporting, and who were out arguing in force against net neutrality. Lee Fang, at Vice, who wrote the original report that was based on now has a followup, talking about how many of the organizations listed as "members" of the astroturf group "Broadband for America" claim they have no idea what that is and did not choose to sign up.

Bob Calvert, the host of TalkingWithHeroes.com, a radio program listed as a Broadband for American member, told us that he is not familiar with the net neutrality debate. "My program is a non-political program supporting our men and women who serve and who have served our country and their families," said Calvert, in response to an inquiry from VICE.

Another Broadband for America member, the Texas Organization of Rural & Community Hospitals, said it had joined only to support broadband access in rural and underserved areas, not on issues relating to net neutrality or the classification of broadband as a utility. "We will reexamine this endorsement and make a determination whether to continue supporting the coalition should we find that the current policies they are proposing would undermine the original goal of greater access for all Americans," said Dave Pearson, president of the group, which represents rural hospitals in Texas as the name suggests.

Some directly say they disagree with Broadband for America's position on net neutrality.

Don Hollister, the executive director of the Ohio League of Conservation Voters, said he was unaware of his organization being listed as a Broadband for America member. After our inquiry, Hollister wrote to us to share a message he sent to Broadband for America:

"The Ohio League of Conservation Voters does not endorse your position on broadband. This is not a policy area that we take positions on. Why are we listed as a Broadband for America member? I am unaware of Ohio LCV taking any position on broadband issues and I have been Executive Director since 2011. The Ohio LCV is not a member of Broadband for America. Remove us from your listing of members."

Other groups we contacted were simply confused. "I'm not aware of them and I pay all the bills. I've never heard of Broadband for America," replied Keith Jackson, an accountant with the Spread Eagle Tavern & Inn, a cozy bed and breakfast in Ohio that is listed as a Broadband for America member.

There's more in the original article. But it's pretty straightforward: many of the named members either had no idea or thought they were signing up for something very, very different. And yet now they are "supporting" policies they either don't know about or don't support. But this is how things are done in the cynical corners of Washington DC. You get support in any way necessary, no matter how ridiculous.

from the why-not-just-compete? dept

At some point companies and organizations are going to have to learn that astroturfing is going to accomplish absolutely nothing positive and almost certainly a whole lot of negative. The practice of faking support through BS internet comments is every bit as petty and stupid as it sounds, resulting in these folks either looking really silly or downright hypocritical. That said, it's one thing to astroturf for what typically amounts to a crappy cause, but it's quite another level of dumb when you do it to try to influence consumer behavior purely as a business practice.

For instance, take Samsung, which has been the king of the mobile phone market for the past few years. It's now been fined by Taiwan's Fair Trade Commission (FTC) for splashing fake comments all over the internet demeaning HTC phones while favoring its own.

In a notice on its website, the consumer protection body said that Samsung had organized an Internet campaign in violation of fair trade rules to praise Samsung smartphones while slamming those of HTC. The FTC set Samsung's fine at New Taiwan dollars 10 million ($340,000). It also leveled smaller fines on two Taiwanese trading companies it said were responsible for mounting the Internet campaign.

It should be noted that this isn't the first time Samsung has been fined for misleading behavior, having faced FTC sanctions mere months ago over the way they mislead consumers about some of the camera functions on their phones. Now, $340k may not seem like that big a deal, and it probably isn't, but you and any potential Samsung partners should be looking at this as a symptom, not the disease.

Even as Samsung has been leading the market lately, this sends a clear message to anyone paying attention that Samsung doesn't think it can actually compete fairly in the marketplace. The company apparently believes they're best bet is to generate positive outlook on their phones by faking grassroot support as opposed to actually earning it. That's a problem in and of itself, but add to it a drop in confidence and favorability now that the astroturfing campaign has been exposed and the corporate-meltdown pump has been primed. Samsung may want to remind itself of the fate of Nokia -- another company that was once at the top of the heap in mobile phones, before it became complacent on innovation and learned how quickly a market can move in a different direction.